Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#191

Post by vidarh » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 1:33 PM UTC

rbarooah wrote: post #187

philwelch wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Internationalization is a valid point, but I'm not too choked up about my witch doctor not being allowed to perform open heart surgery. Besides, he would probably rather prescribe me water or stick needles in me instead.

Sarcasm aside, you're missing the point. Why isn't it sufficient to regulate the title 'Doctor' without preventing other practitioners from practicing? People who wanted a traditional medical practitioner would be protected, and those who were willing to take more risk would have the choice.

Because it assumes there would be a real informed choice.

The staggering amount of money that do get paid to quacks selling stuff that is proven not to work show us very clearly that informed choice is largely a fantasy when dealing with the general public.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#192

Post by crusso » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 1:35 PM UTC

Think about this. If you have too many doctors, they run out of sick people and their prices go down. They don't go out and start injuring people to make business for themselves.

Lawyers do just that. If they don't have work, they can attack innocent citizens to create work for themselves. Frivolous law suits create new market pressure for more attorneys. Whenever you see slip-n-fall attorney commercials, that's just an window into the parasitically-based ecosystem that lawyers operate in.

Failing that, lawyers are the most likely profession to go into politics and create more laws that need what to sort them out? Oh yeah, more lawyers.

It's a troubling profession that needs to be considered carefully when you're making decisions about the economic impact of laws upon society.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#193

Post by chollida1 » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 1:37 PM UTC

tomkarlo wrote: post #156

chollida1 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You risk your life getting into your car every day. You don't pick the most expensive car? Choosing air travel is commonly an exercise in finding the lowest price, despite the inherent risks/fear of traveling 4 miles up at 500mph. Why are these commodities while preparing a will is not? That's easy. The expense of a car or plane doesn't indicate it's safety, infact it's usually the opposite, the more expensive the…

> That's easy. The expense of a car or plane doesn't indicate it's safety, infact it's usually the opposite, the more expensive the car or plane the faster it goes and less safe it can make your trip. > With a doctor or lawyer more often than not the more you pay the better the service/advice you get. Do you know this, or do you just believe / hope this? I'd argue that the actual quality of service delivered (not jus…

> Do you know this, or do you just believe / hope this?

Good question, the answer is obviously I can't say its' true for 100% of the cases but do this thought experiment.

You are going to court against someone else, you get a public defender, your opponent brings in a team of 10 lawyers costing $100,000 a week.

If the evidence makes the case look like its 50:50. What is your chance of success? I think almost everyone would agree that its much lower than 50:50 after you factor in the lawyers.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#194

Post by dchest » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 1:55 PM UTC

law wrote: post #109

thinkcomp wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much text as might exist around the subject, it looks like the "blanket prohibitions" aren't working and everyone knows it. There's a small loophole in the rule you describe--what happens if a non-attorney learns of an attorney's misconduct? Nothing, that's what! It's not ridiculous for me to want to represent my company without having taken the bar exam--you're using a legal fiction to argue that even though I pa…

I don't understand your first point. Nothing precludes a non-lawyer from reporting an attorney's misconduct. However, the fact that they cannot be compelled to by statute irrefutably proves my point: that the practice of law must be (self-)regulated. Regarding your second, the fact that you pay your company's taxes is irrelevant. "You" can be substituted by any other shareholder or partner; the shareholders/partners…

The corporation is its own, independent legal entity. Because it's fictitious, it cannot make decisions, which means (as a matter of law) it's incompetent to stand trial.

I don't follow the logic here. If it's fictitious and incompetent to stand trial, then why it can be brought to trial at all?

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#195

Post by anamax » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 2:09 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #140

mirceagoia wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on how much time you have...if it's very urgent you get the first available...if it's not that urgent then you can afford to compare.

Right, and the comparison is usually not over price, but perceived quality. The best example for doctors is elective plastic surgery. Do you get a boob job from the cheapest or the best? The glut of expensive surgeons in the L.A. area indicates cost is not a major factor. For lawyers it might be a lawsuit. Do you go with the cheapest lawyer? Most people go with who they think is most likely to win the case (or net th…

> The glut of expensive surgeons in the L.A. area indicates cost is not a major factor.

Unless you're also going to argue that the large number of expensive cars in LA "indicates that cost is not a major factor" for cars. (The same can be said for handbags.)

Never confuse what rich folk will pay for luxuries with real world prices.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#196

Post by jrs235 » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 3:57 PM UTC

rodyancy wrote: post #57

learc83 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>More lawyers could afford to charge reasonable market rates, and not work for large firms, if it weren't for the ABA mandating that you have to attend a law school (that results in huge piles of debt) or clerk for years (four in California) in order to join the bar. That's exactly the problem, regulatory capture of government protected guilds. It's exactly the same with Doctors and the AMA, or electricians, hell in…

Without a regulatory body it would be too easy for an unqualified person to pose as an electrician, doctor, dentist or lawyer. Do you really want someone with no experience or training wiring your house, pulling your teeth, operating on your knee, or defending you at trial?

There's nothing wrong with certifying organizations, but there ought to be competition and free market choice. Leave it to the buyer to determine if they wish to hire a "State Certified Electrician" or "Professional Electricians" certified electrician, or the electrician with not credentials. But also place legal civil obligations on the buyer. "OH NO!" you scream because how can the buyer know what the local codes are and make sure the electrician is following them? The buyer needs to know and be educated to transfer that risk to the electrician. State in the contract that the electrician is responsible for any/all civil fines due to work they perform. The certifying (and competing) organizations can/will work with insurance companies to also transfer some risk off and away from the contractor.

The contractor and buyer still should be criminally liable for any willful noncompliance.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#197

Post by jrs235 » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 4:13 PM UTC

thinkcomp wrote: post #59

rodyancy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without a regulatory body it would be too easy for an unqualified person to pose as an electrician, doctor, dentist or lawyer. Do you really want someone with no experience or training wiring your house, pulling your teeth, operating on your knee, or defending you at trial?

If I want to represent myself or my company at trial, I should have that right.

To clear some things up:

The reason you can not represent anyone other than yourself in court without passing the BAR examine is because the defendant might not be properly represented and cause problems such as mistrial or open up loads of appeals. Why? The bar examine is used to ensure that an attorney knows and understands the legal rules and procedures. That's it. If an attorney fails to object to a motion [on behalf of their client], fails to file a motion [on behalf of their client], or fails to respond to a claim or motion [on behalf of their client] then their client isn't being properly represented. Why can YOU represent YOURSELF? Because if you fail any of those things, well, it's your own fault. What is the number one topic we are failing to teach in our education system? BASIC [foundational] law and legal issues.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#198

Post by javert » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 4:48 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #142

javert wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't judge Ayn Rand (well, anyone--and that's my real point) by a mistaken attack on someone else (Aristotle). That's worse than judging her by a cartoon. Again, it's not an honest approach. So sorry if I stoop to ridicule if you worship her turgid prose, but really In case you actually think I approach ideas in a dishonest, religious way (hence, "worship")--I don't. This is just a stupid comment. And the idea o…

I can judge Ayn Rand's philosophy partly on that of Aristotle given that she claimed to be a philosopher who owed nothing to anyone else in her philosophy other than Aristotle. Which I personally think is a completely ludicrous and frankly egotistical thing for anyone to try and claim. So how am I being dishonest? Also, how have I misunderstood the idea being presented here; "For instance, in the definition of table…

but given that you presented me with this excerpt and claimed it as a reasonable argument

I didn't claim it as a reasonable argument. I don't think it's very useful out of context. Just wanted to illustrate genus and differentia.

So how am I being dishonest?

You're being dishonest because you're just indulging your emotional whims by "judging" things on completely irrational criteria, instead of actually examining the ideas.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#199

Post by javert » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 4:51 PM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #139

javert wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Needless to say, I disagree with you on this topic. I can't make a better argument than the book from which I pulled those quotations, so I'll direct people who are interested there.

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." As quoted from Oscar Wilde, so this post might be recursive ;)

ktizo, I don't know why I'm indulging your crusade of hunting down my posts and hurling arbitrary insults. In fact, I'm not going to do so anymore.

Because I'm human, it could be the case I haven't thought things through carefully, but it's not simply not the case.

Re: Why Are Lawyers So Expensive Even With The Excess Supply Of Lawyers?

#200

Post by rbarooah » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 5:01 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #191

rbarooah wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcasm aside, you're missing the point. Why isn't it sufficient to regulate the title 'Doctor' without preventing other practitioners from practicing? People who wanted a traditional medical practitioner would be protected, and those who were willing to take more risk would have the choice.

Because it assumes there would be a real informed choice. The staggering amount of money that do get paid to quacks selling stuff that is proven not to work show us very clearly that informed choice is largely a fantasy when dealing with the general public.

What makes you so sure things would get worse?